"Whistleblower Chelsea Manning has been denied entry into Canada due to her conviction for passing classified US intelligence documents to WikiLeaks. Posting evidence of the ban on Twitter, Manning showed that her temporary visitor application on September 22 was rejected 'on grounds of serious criminality.'

Funny how Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Bush, Petro Poroshenko - all guilty of 'serious criminality' are or will be visiting Canada, but this heroic whistleblower is denied entry. Is brownosing Trump so important to the Trudeau regime?

Somehow I can't see Pierre Trudeau's government barring Daniel Ellsburg from the country because he gave information classified top secret to the New York Times. But at least Canadians can sleep a lot easier tonight.

There is nothing 'wooly headed or silly' about the contention that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are war criminals, unindicted though they may be.

Just so you know what the law actually says on the entry into Canada of a 'credibly suspected' war criminal such as Obama or his former SecState Clinton, or Chrystia Freeland's oligarch pal Ukrainian president and CIA 'asset' Petro Poroshenko for example, please see LAW's petition against the Bush visit in 2009. The law still stands, although unenforced.

I would have thought the NDP would have seized upon this incident with great gusto. What a perfect political opportunity. I wouldn't even be surprised to see JT the drama teacher reverse the ban and demonstrate to the world once again what a great progressive sensitive human being he is.

Somehow I can't see Pierre Trudeau's government barring Daniel Ellsburg from the country because he gave information classified top secret to the New York Times. But at least Canadians can sleep a lot easier tonight.

Was this decision made by Justin Trudeau, or was it just immigration officials applying a standing rule about people convicted of crimes? Because, if my skim of his wikipedia article is correct, Ellesberg was never convicted, so any such rule might not have been applicable in his case.

I suppose that, if he had the power, PET might have over-ruled the border guards to allow in a convicted whistleblower, though if leaking classified documents was also a crime in Canada, it might be kind of an awkward position to take.

Somehow I can't see Pierre Trudeau's government barring Daniel Ellsburg from the country because he gave information classified top secret to the New York Times. But at least Canadians can sleep a lot easier tonight.

Was this decision made by Justin Trudeau, or was it just immigration officials applying a standing rule about people convicted of crimes? Because, if my skim of his wikipedia article is correct, Ellesberg was never convicted, so any such rule might not have been applicable in his case.

I suppose that, if he had the power, PET might have over-ruled the border guards to allow in a convicted whistleblower, though if leaking classified documents was also a crime in Canada, it might be kind of an awkward position to take.

No he wasn't convicted. The charges were dismissed because of governmental misconduct.

I would have thought the NDP would have seized upon this incident with great gusto. What a perfect political opportunity. I wouldn't even be surprised to see JT the drama teacher reverse the ban and demonstrate to the world once again what a great progressive sensitive human being he is.

The comparison between Canadian and US law in the immigration official’s letter is absurd, to say the least. Manning is “not authorized to enter Canada” because the Trudeau government will do anything to turn the machinery of the Canadian government “toward finding a way to get along” with Trump.

According to the letter Manning has released to the media, Manning is “inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years... namely Treason described under section 46(2)(B) of the Criminal Code of Canada, punishable under section 47(2)(C) of the Criminal Code of Canada, for which a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment may be imposed.”

This doesn't look like unfair persecution, but an application of the law as it is written. That said, given Manning's high profile, and our pretty PM's penchant for symbolic gestures, I concur with NDPP, and can see Justin getting personally involved.

Which countries are on the CBSA's list as ones against which treason is grounds for inadmissibility? Is it NATO member states only? It seems to me Canada likes welcoming dissidents from countries we don't like. If we don't like them enough, treason may actually get you honorary Canadian citizenship.

"...Manning's support team responded with astonishment to the suggestion by Canadian authorities that her prosecution under the US Espionage Act was equivalent to treason under Canadian law. They stressed that the Espionage Act was unprecedented around the world as it allows no margin for whistleblowers to argue that the disclosures they made were in the public interest.

Manning's team said their concerns now focused on whether Manning's experience with Canadian immigration officials would be replicated in other countries that might be susceptible to US government pressure. Manning has a number of international speaking engagements in development...

How ridiculous. I very much doubt the border guard consulted with the Trudeau government. They also don't go into the details of individual cases they just apply the rules. She is going through an appeal process which is her right but I doubt an exception will be made for her. She was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Unjust though the conviction may be it is quite normal for countries to bar convicts from entering. Is Manning stupid?

As to Ashton she has no political instincts. When you are outraged over everything your outrage is dismissed.

There is no reason for Canada to extend special treatment to Manning. Not even Conrad Black showed up at the border without warning expecting to be let in.

"Oh my god: this is how deranged official Washington is. The President of the largest Dem Party think tank (funded in part by dictators) genuinely believes Chelsea Manning's candidacy is a Kremlin plot. Conspiracy theorists thrive more in mainstream DC than on internet fringes." - Glenn Greenwald

"The idea that Putin plotted to unseat a Russia critic in the US Senate by getting a trans woman who was convicted of felony leaking to run against him is too inane to merit any additional comment. Why are establishment Democrats so determined to prevent the first trans woman from becoming a US Senator?"

Good article. I like this point Greenwald keeps making, and I hope he keeps making it over and over again:

""

They’ve decided to do this presumably because they find Cardin’s centrist ideology and politics more appealing than Manning’s more radical politics and believe that this trumps what could be the historic value of Manning’s candidacy. They’ve apparently decided to prioritize their own centrist ideology over the important gender, sexual orientation, and trans equality progress that Manning’s victory would ensure.

One can certainly make an argument that the license they’ve granted themselves here — to prioritize ideology and politics over identity — is a reasonable one. But one wonders whether they intend to maintain a monopoly on this license or extend it to others." ...

"They give themselves license to support old, straight, white men at the expense of pioneering minority candidates when doing so advances their ideological agenda, whereas leftists who do so are vilified for doing the same thing (see the rhetoric from Hillary Clinton supporters in the 2016 Democratic Party primary about the misogynistic, malignant motives of Bernie Sanders supporters for how that works)."

They’ve apparently decided to prioritize their own centrist ideology over the important gender, sexual orientation, and trans equality progress that Manning’s victory would ensure.

One can certainly make an argument that the license they’ve granted themselves here — to prioritize ideology and politics over identity — is a reasonable one.

"One can" make an argument about anything.

But in this case, is the argument that "trans" (read: transwoman, TBH) issues are really supposed to be more important to the electorate than jobs, foreign policy, health care, the environment, gun control, education, terrorism, inequality, carbon emissions, labour rights, or every other thing?

They’ve apparently decided to prioritize their own centrist ideology over the important gender, sexual orientation, and trans equality progress that Manning’s victory would ensure.

One can certainly make an argument that the license they’ve granted themselves here — to prioritize ideology and politics over identity — is a reasonable one.

"One can" make an argument about anything.

But in this case, is the argument that "trans" (read: transwoman, TBH) issues are really supposed to be more important to the electorate than jobs, foreign policy, health care, the environment, gun control, education, terrorism, inequality, carbon emissions, labour rights, or every other thing besides a human's right to wear makeup?

Well, I think the right to one's own gender identity is a human-right, and one that can be weighed against other considerations when making an elctoral choice. And, of course, in some cases, one consideration is gonna have to lose out. If a Korean presidential candidate was against transgender rights, but in favour of making it easier for foreigners(that would be me) to remain in the country, I might have a bit of a dilemna as to who to cheer for. (I can't vote)

But is there really such a dilemna in the Maryland race? From what I can tell, Ben Cardin is a supporter of glbqt rights, and(granted, without having seen his voting record), I don't know that there is any tangible benefit that will come to trans people as a result of his being tossed from office, except for the symbolic victory of getting a transwoman in the senate.

They’ve apparently decided to prioritize their own centrist ideology over the important gender, sexual orientation, and trans equality progress that Manning’s victory would ensure.

One can certainly make an argument that the license they’ve granted themselves here — to prioritize ideology and politics over identity — is a reasonable one.

"One can" make an argument about anything.

But in this case, is the argument that "trans" (read: transwoman, TBH) issues are really supposed to be more important to the electorate than jobs, foreign policy, health care, the environment, gun control, education, terrorism, inequality, carbon emissions, labour rights, or every other thing besides a human's right to wear makeup?

Seriously, Magoo? You just reduced trans identity to "someone's right to wear makeup"?

Fair point. I've edited my post, but you can leave yours so people know what you're talking about.

And I do stand by my suggestion that there are plenty of more pressing issues in the world than just one. I think it's also a bit dismissive for Greenwald to lump them all in under "centrist ideology".

Fair point. I've edited my post, but you can leave yours so people know what you're talking about.

And I do stand by my suggestion that there are plenty of more pressing issues in the world than just one. I think it's also a bit dismissive for Greenwald to lump them all in under "centrist ideology".

Thank you for editing that. And I'd somewhat agree that we shouldn't necessarily rely on Greenwald's framing of what is and is not "centrist"-Greenwald himself is actually a right-of-center libertarian(in the American, not anarchist sense).

VOTD: "From what I can tell, Ben Cardin is a supporter of glbqt rights, and(granted, without having seen his voting record), I don't know that there is any tangible benefit that will come to trans people as a result of his being tossed from office, except for the symbolic victory of getting a transwoman in the senate."

VOTD, would you agree with the same logic applied to Clinton versus Sanders? Would there have been a tangible benefit to women if Clinton was the nominee for the Democrats over Sanders, apart from the symbolic victory of getting a woman President?

Ken: Greenwald is not a libertarian, nor is he right of centre on anything. Quote me something he said that indicates he is a libertarian or right of centre.

But in this case, is the argument that "trans" (read: transwoman, TBH) issues are really supposed to be more important to the electorate than jobs, foreign policy, health care, the environment, gun control, education, terrorism, inequality, carbon emissions, labour rights, or every other thing?

VOTD, would you agree with the same logic applied to Clinton versus Sanders? Would there have been a tangible benefit to women if Clinton was the nominee for the Democrats over Sanders, apart from the symbolic victory of getting a woman President?

No, there was little tangible benefit to Clinton over Sanders, in terms of the policies they would have implemented(and in fact, Sanders would probably be better on that score). The only real benefit with Clinton, as I saw it, was that she was more electable than Sanders, and thus more likely(everything being relative) to keep the GOP from grabbing the White House. (Personally, I believe people who argue Sanders was more electable don't take into account that he never had to face a Republican smear campaign in a national contest.)

In the case of the Maryland race, I believe Chelsea is running against Cardin in the election for senator, not in the Democratic primaries, so the issue is a little different than Clinton Vs. Sanders. I think I might agree with Manning on more things than Cardin, but I would worry about splitting the vote and seeing a Republican win.

And, no, I am not interested in having a debate about strategic voting vs. voting your conscience(not that I think you would be the one to try and get that going). I'm just explaining how I would vote.

VOTD: Thanks for the response. I get your logic on the voting and have no issue with it. If I may characterize it, you are operating pragmatically with electability being a key consideration, alongside policy and identity.

Magoo: I think Greenwald is attempting, once again, to point out the hypocrisy and cynicism of the Democratic Party around issues of identity. He is not advocating that identity, and the positive effects of having people with marginalized identities in positions of power SHOULD be the deciding consideration over ideology or policy. He's saying that the Democrats DO take that position when it suits them, but drop it when doing so might risk placing someone with more radical politics in a position of power. Like in this case. I read the "one could make the argument" bit as acknowledging that prioritizing politics over identity is also a reasonable position, and an attempt to avoid having that argument, because his main point was to point out the cynical hypocrisy of the Democrats on this stuff.

Personally, I think most people do what VOTD described above and consider identity and politics as part of the equation in deciding who to support, along with the local context. I don't think there is a general or absolute principle that can always be applied.

It's illegal for Chelsea Manning to run for Senate, former top JAG officer says

Quote:

Convicted felon and former Army analyst Chelsea Manning filed to run for a U.S. Senate seat this month, but it’s a Defense Department regulation violation and is illegal if Manning continues to run for office in Maryland, a former top Air Force judge advocate (JAG) said....Col. Ralph Capio, U.S. Air Force (retired), a former Air Force JAG, told American Military News on Tuesday that Manning is still on active military duty status in an “excess leave” situation, and is therefore violating a military regulation that states active duty military can’t be engaged in partisan politics. If the regulation isn’t waived, then Manning would be considered in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Apparently, there's a couple of legal routes, such as Manning being granted an exemption from this regulation by the Secretary of Defense, or Manning could be court-martialed.